Literature DB >> 28720612

Translating staff experience into organisational improvement: the HEADS-UP stepped wedge, cluster controlled, non-randomised trial.

Samuel Pannick1, Thanos Athanasiou2, Susannah J Long1,3, Iain Beveridge4, Nick Sevdalis5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Frontline insights into care delivery correlate with patients' clinical outcomes. These outcomes might be improved through near-real time identification and mitigation of staff concerns. We evaluated the effects of a prospective frontline surveillance system on patient and team outcomes.
DESIGN: Prospective, stepped wedge, non-randomised, cluster controlled trial; prespecified per protocol analysis for high-fidelity intervention delivery. PARTICIPANTS: Seven interdisciplinary medical ward teams from two hospitals in the UK. INTERVENTION: Prospective clinical team surveillance (PCTS): structured daily interdisciplinary briefings to capture staff concerns, with organisational facilitation and feedback. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was excess length of stay (eLOS): an admission more than 24 hours above the local average for comparable patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and teamwork climates, and incident reporting. Mixed-effects models adjusted for time effects, age, comorbidity, palliation status and ward admissions. Safety and teamwork climates were measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. High-fidelity PCTS delivery comprised high engagement and high briefing frequency.
RESULTS: Implementation fidelity was variable, both in briefing frequency (median 80% working days/month, IQR 65%-90%) and engagement (median 70 issues/ward/month, IQR 34-113). 1714/6518 (26.3%) intervention admissions had eLOS versus 1279/4927 (26.0%) control admissions, an absolute risk increase of 0.3%. PCTS increased eLOS in the adjusted intention-to-treat model (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Conversely, high-fidelity PCTS reduced eLOS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94, p=0.006). High-fidelity PCTS also increased total, high-yield and non-nurse incident reports (incidence rate ratios 1.28-1.79, all p<0.002). Sustained PCTS significantly improved safety and teamwork climates over time.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the potential benefits and pitfalls of ward-level interdisciplinary interventions. While these interventions can improve care delivery in complex, fluid environments, the manner of their implementation is paramount. Suboptimal implementation may have an unexpectedly negative impact on performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 34806867 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34806867). © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  interdisciplinary care; medical wards; patient safety; stepped wedge trial

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28720612      PMCID: PMC5541585          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014333

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  41 in total

1.  Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Charles L Bosk; Emma Louise Aveling; Christine A Goeschel; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Design and validation of an error capture tool for quality evaluation in the vascular and endovascular surgical theatre.

Authors:  S L Mason; S Kuruvilla; C V Riga; M S Gohel; M Hamady; N J Cheshire; C D Bicknell
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2013-01-08       Impact factor: 7.069

3.  Effect of patient-centred bedside rounds on hospitalised patients' decision control, activation and satisfaction with care.

Authors:  Kevin J O'Leary; Audrey Killarney; Luke O Hansen; Sasha Jones; Megan Malladi; Kelly Marks; Hiren M Shah
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 7.035

4.  Translating concerns into action: a detailed qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary intervention on medical wards.

Authors:  Samuel Pannick; Stephanie Archer; Maximillian J Johnston; Iain Beveridge; Susannah Jane Long; Thanos Athanasiou; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-04-05       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 5.  Teamwork assessment in internal medicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes.

Authors:  Rachel D A Havyer; Majken T Wingo; Nneka I Comfere; Darlene R Nelson; Andrew J Halvorsen; Furman S McDonald; Darcy A Reed
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Can staff and patient perspectives on hospital safety predict harm-free care? An analysis of staff and patient survey data and routinely collected outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca Lawton; Jane Kathryn O'Hara; Laura Sheard; Caroline Reynolds; Kim Cocks; Gerry Armitage; John Wright
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-04-10       Impact factor: 7.035

7.  Registered nurse, healthcare support worker, medical staffing levels and mortality in English hospital trusts: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Peter Griffiths; Jane Ball; Trevor Murrells; Simon Jones; Anne Marie Rafferty
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach.

Authors:  Karla Hemming; Monica Taljaard
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-09-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 9.  Improving feedback on junior doctors' prescribing errors: mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Matthew Reynolds; Seetal Jheeta; Jonathan Benn; Inderjit Sanghera; Ann Jacklin; Digby Ingle; Bryony Dean Franklin
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 7.035

10.  Beyond metrics? Utilizing 'soft intelligence' for healthcare quality and safety.

Authors:  Graham P Martin; Lorna McKee; Mary Dixon-Woods
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Huddles and their effectiveness at the frontlines of clinical care: a scoping review.

Authors:  Camilla B Pimentel; A Lynn Snow; Sarah L Carnes; Nishant R Shah; Julia R Loup; Tatiana M Vallejo-Luces; Caroline Madrigal; Christine W Hartmann
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: a systematic review of the past decade.

Authors:  Martina Buljac-Samardzic; Kirti D Doekhie; Jeroen D H van Wijngaarden
Journal:  Hum Resour Health       Date:  2020-01-08

3.  Increasing the use of perioperative risk scoring in emergency laparotomy: nationwide quality improvement programme.

Authors:  Deirdre M Nally; Peter E Lonergan; Emer P O'Connell; Deborah A McNamara
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2022-07-07

4.  The Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Team Huddles in Healthcare Hospital-Based Setting.

Authors:  Shih Ping Lin; Ching-Wein Chang; Chun-Yi Wu; Chun-Shih Chin; Cheng-Hsien Lin; Sz-Iuan Shiu; Yun-Wen Chen; Tsai-Hung Yen; Hui-Chi Chen; Yi-Hung Lai; Shu-Chin Hou; Ming-Ju Wu; Hsin-Hua Chen
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2022-10-06

5.  Novel team-based approach to quality improvement effectively engages staff and reduces adverse events in healthcare settings.

Authors:  Annie Gabrielle Curtin; Vitas Anderson; Fran Brockhus; Donna Ruth Cohen
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.